Market Economies vs Market Societies

…some of the good things in life are degraded if turned into commodities. So to decide where the market belongs, and where it should be kept at a distance, we have to decide how to value the goods in question—health, education, family life, nature, art, civic duties, and so on. These are moral and political questions, not merely economic ones. To resolve them, we have to debate, case by case, the moral meaning of these goods, and the proper way of valuing them.

This is a debate we didn’t have during the era of market triumphalism. As a result, without quite realizing it—without ever deciding to do so—we drifted from having a market economy to being a market society.

The difference is this: A market economy is a tool—a valuable and effective tool—for organizing productive activity. A market society is a way of life in which market values seep into every aspect of human endeavor. It’s a place where social relations are made over in the image of the market

Like this:

Related

2 Responses to “Market Economies vs Market Societies”

Perhaps the only way to dismantle these blowhards is to go through their rhetoric step by step. But it is so tiresome.
They always begin with the pseudo-knowledge – here: ‘There are some things money can’t buy’… (We all know that there are some things that money cannot buy! Problem: what does he mean by ‘money’?)
Then, in rhetorical fancy steps, he lists many things that ‘should not’ be purchasable, suggesting some sort of class (in the widest sense of the term) conflict: ‘NOT EVERYONE CAN AFFORD to buy these things.’
(There is no list of that which cannot be ‘bought,’ ‘purchased.’)

There is no argument as to the merits of purchase. That is sidestepped. An appeal to outrage is made rather: maybe, buying a 3D movie of sex with one’s mother!? (Hat tilt to Freud!)
Sandel goes on and on with his list of bads.
Then, moving into his argument, he claims that more things are marketable now than in the past. This follows, without his moralism, as there are more things!
Hinting at a desire for a command economy he writes “We did not arrive at this condition through any deliberate choice. It is almost as if it came upon us.”
Almost spooky — like the weather. Damn, it was cold; now it is hot.
Presumably, under the Sandelian view, all things would be planned, and all things would be in accordance with his wishes, values, likes.

This is such rhetorical tripe — and I am too tired to whack it down tonight.
Get back to it later.

I think the thing that resonates with me goes back to your comment about the non-definition of ‘money’ in the piece. I understand him to be referring to regular ole’ money- that which my two-year old granddaughter identifies as ‘money.’

It seems to me that while money is nothing new, the unprecedented productivity that’s accompanied the development of Capitalism is due in no small part to the more precise and rational use of money as a tool of accounting. I think that this development paralleled the growth/success of other technologies in the objectification, unification and mathematizing of reality. Money- as an abstract unit of analysis, not simply possession- made the growth in productivity possible.

Neil Postman got hold of me years ago; and I just don’t believe in neutral technologies. The magic of ‘money’ as a metric is that it objectifies, unifies and quantifies by leveling all values. I suspect this is what Mr. Sande means when he says that it snuck up on us. To twist Mr. Postman- to a man with money, everything looks like a commodity.

I don’t have a problem with markets. I just don’t believe every relationship is a market one; nor that all significant values are measurable by a money matrix. That doesn’t strike me as controversial at all- not, anyway, for a baptized Xian who affirms that Christ- not Mammon- is Lord of creation.

I don’t wish to be caught moralizing. That sounds so ugly and petty. I do believe in a particular vision of human flourishing, though. I feel constrained to recommend it for consideration. That vision has little of State ‘planning’ about it- though communities will always- as they always have- protect their defining values by declaring some things illicit. How could it be otherwise?

Life extends (or ought to extend) as far beyond the state as it does ‘the market.’ There are other possibilities. To misquote Mr. Wittgenstein, our imaginations have simply become captive to the image of money as measure. That at least is what I suspect about myself.